Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can I continue?

Yes, thank you, convener. I listened carefully to Maurice Golden and I respect the intention behind amendment 207. I support the ambition to increase the visibility of existing and planned waste reprocessing infrastructure. I can see the benefits that it can bring for drive and investment but, at the moment, I do not consider that, as it is drafted, the requirement should be in the bill. I would value having time to consider the amendment more carefully, including evaluating costing, timing, the feasibility of developing a report, the impact on other commitments and whether commissioning an independent review would be a more appropriate strategy.

We mentioned the report that was undertaken in relation to incineration that was referred to by a couple of members, particularly Mr Golden. Within the draft circular economy and waste route map, data and infrastructure are identified as key areas of focus that will underpin the circular economy transformation that we need to deliver. That underlines the importance of identifying future strategic infrastructure requirements for Scotland as a whole and, taking a place-based approach, for local needs. That is linked to national planning framework 4.

As Mr Lumsden has been in the Parliament for a few years now, he will know that a committee can have any deliberations that it wants on what evidence to take on an SSI and that the Government will go out to consultation. Mention of business impacts has been made a number of times now, and I point out that it is our duty to consult with businesses ahead of any changes that would be made. Any speculative throwing around of examples—say, chip papers—does the process a bit of a disservice, as there would be an opportunity for scrutiny as well as consultation. After all, we would not want to do anything disproportionate.

We will consider carefully the policy interactions and implications of any future deposit return schemes and charges for single-use items. Although we might agree in principle that any item that is subject to a deposit should not be subject to a charge, too, we do not yet know what the DRS is going to look like; we are still having discussions with the UK Government and other devolved Governments, and at this point, it is not possible to evaluate all the future policy interactions. I cannot agree to anything that will restrict something that we might need in the future.

Amendment 25 seeks to exempt “items that are biodegradable”. Without a specified environment or time frame and a proper definition, the term “biodegradable” is problematic, as it is unclear. Mr Simpson mentioned compostable and biodegradable products, but those are two very separate things. Typically, products that are referred to as biodegradable are single use, with their own set of waste management charges. The majority of materials that are found in any litter stream are, eventually, biodegradable, but we need to consider how many years those products take to degrade. Exempting biodegradable items from charges would create a significant potential loophole for suppliers to continue supplying single-use items without charging for them, which would undermine the purpose of the charge.

More important, because of that loophole, any actions that we could take to reduce the number of single-use items would not work. After all, the bill is aimed at improving recycling rates and, with regard to the waste hierarchy, at removing wasteful items from the economy, in general. Unfortunately, Mr Simpson’s amendment 25 provides a loophole, and I do not want that to happen.

Despite what Mr Simpson said in his opening comments, I am open to discussing anything that has a laudable intention. I understand why Mr Simpson has lodged his amendments, and I am happy to work with him on this matter, but I do not want to be in a situation where the use of certain language would create a loophole. Perhaps we can discuss the matter ahead of stage 3.

The initial proposed items that will be subject to regulation, should the bill be passed, will be single-use coffee cups. We know that. We would require suppliers to levy that charge—that is what the power will do—when they supply the goods to their customers. I think that it is quite clear who that would be.

On amendment 29, I note that Scottish ministers already have the power to give financial assistance to small businesses and microbusinesses—

It is the supplier of the drink in the coffee cup. That seems quite clear to me.

Mr Lumsden will be familiar with the single-use carrier bag charge. That is what is proposed here.

I will be as clear as I possibly can. With, for example, single-use coffee cups, the proposal is that when you buy a takeaway coffee in a cup—that is, at the point of sale—a charge will be applied, as with a carrier bag. The charge will be applied at the point of sale.

On a point of clarification, does Graham Simpson agree that section 9 gives the power to put a charge on items when regulations are brought forward that specify that item, which will allow Parliament a chance to scrutinise the merits of putting a charge on the item, rather than having a list of items in the bill? There is a power to put a charge on specified items via regulations in the future.

On that point, I highlight—although I am loth to mention this, because Mr Simpson knows the parliamentary processes very well, in particular given his previous convenerships—that ministers have a legal duty to take account of any report or resolution of the Parliament. The super-affirmative process provides for an extended amount of time for scrutiny of regulations about specific items. Before we lay regulations in Parliament, it would not just be that we may consult—we would consult; we are legally bound to consult on the implications of what we are producing.

When laying regulations, we need to give a statement setting out the changes. We also need to take into account what Parliament says in response.